Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Yes…there are studies into people swearing. I thought this might be an interesting piece to read, due to the profession that I am in…and even though it comes from the NYT.

The article discusses, over the course of 4 pages, a few things about bad language. In no particular order:

Cursing is universal

Curses towards another individual are rarely random, rather they are calculated when attacking

Swearing elicits a biological response from individuals

Profanity can rid a person of stress and anger

Swearing is often practiced as a coping mechanism

If the person is too enraged for expletives, there is major cause for concern (Think: “Going Postal” or “Going Schoolin’”)

The difference of swear words across cultures is due to fears and fixations in that particular culture.

When one person swears to another, it is a decision made and not an impulsive reflex in most cases.

Okay, so Contestant Number 1 calls in, escalates to me, and is upset about needing to fax appropriate documentation to resolve a missing payment issue. They think that we should take their word for this or that we can otherwise perform the necessary searches to find the payment. Our tools in this regard are limited, so they go off on a string of profanities, thinking that this will change my decision. Is this just venting their frustration with the matter?

Let’s try Contestant Number 2. Calling in, the customer wants an extension on making a payment on the account. Oh yeah, I’ve been told I pretty much have to give them the moon on this one. I guess Contestant Number 2 gets a prize.

Contestant Number 3 calls in, wanting to escalate over something stupid, say, such as collections calls. Yes, people who owe balances on their account, and get calls about these balances will routinely ask to speak to supervisors. Being kind and civil at first, they don’t get the answer that they like, so they attempt to elicit a different response from me by swearing a chain of profanities that would make male ranchers kicked between the legs by mad cattle proud.

So, I guess that people just generally don’t like me, so their trying to belittle me.

Yep.

I’ve made a determination with a lot of people. They have a tendency of being:

Yes…there are studies into people swearing. I thought this might be an interesting piece to read, due to the profession that I am in…and even though it comes from the NYT.

The article discusses, over the course of 4 pages, a few things about bad language. In no particular order:

Cursing is universal

Curses towards another individual are rarely random, rather they are calculated when attacking

Swearing elicits a biological response from individuals

Profanity can rid a person of stress and anger

Swearing is often practiced as a coping mechanism

If the person is too enraged for expletives, there is major cause for concern (Think: “Going Postal” or “Going Schoolin’”)

The difference of swear words across cultures is due to fears and fixations in that particular culture.

When one person swears to another, it is a decision made and not an impulsive reflex in most cases.

Okay, so Contestant Number 1 calls in, escalates to me, and is upset about needing to fax appropriate documentation to resolve a missing payment issue. They think that we should take their word for this or that we can otherwise perform the necessary searches to find the payment. Our tools in this regard are limited, so they go off on a string of profanities, thinking that this will change my decision. Is this just venting their frustration with the matter?

Let’s try Contestant Number 2. Calling in, the customer wants an extension on making a payment on the account. Oh yeah, I’ve been told I pretty much have to give them the moon on this one. I guess Contestant Number 2 gets a prize.

Contestant Number 3 calls in, wanting to escalate over something stupid, say, such as collections calls. Yes, people who owe balances on their account, and get calls about these balances will routinely ask to speak to supervisors. Being kind and civil at first, they don’t get the answer that they like, so they attempt to elicit a different response from me by swearing a chain of profanities that would make male ranchers kicked between the legs by mad cattle proud.

So, I guess that people just generally don’t like me, so their trying to belittle me.

Yep.

I’ve made a determination with a lot of people. They have a tendency of being:

Monday, September 19, 2005

The study of strategy originally, as discussed above, was the art of a general in the framing of a war; historically, in most societies (eastern and western civilizations), this fell upon the monarch or other ruler of the sovereignty. This began to change in the early 1800s (the Napoleonic Era) when great military thinkers like Karl von Clauswitz and Antoine-Henri Jomini began to construct the way that modern thinkers work with strategy. In about a century—from the times of Napoleon and his campaign to conquer Europe to Pershing’s execution of World War I—strategy shifted into two components: National strategy (including posturing of national defense and the political elements) and operational strategy, practiced primarily at corps and division levels.

This great shift rose during a period when scholars of strategy began realizing that one of the change constants in strategy is technology: Certain concepts of strategy may remain constant, however it must be adapted to the changing technology in the world. Even though technology may play a part in warfare (with rifles or otherwise), Colonel John R. Boyd, American military strategist reminds: “Machines don’t fight wars. People do, and they use their minds.”

And so, over the years, each great strategist usually develops a number of principles in order to portray their beliefs on the subject to the rest of the world and to the rest of history. These range from the almost-poetic discussion on strategy in warfare by Sun Tzu in The Art of War through U.S. Air Force Colonel John R. Boyd’s A Discourse on Winning and Losing. One of the first things that an acute strategist is going to look at is the environment. In the history of warfare this has equated to the terrain: Take the high ground, don’t get caught on the low ground, etc. In “everyday strategy” or corporate warfare, one needs to ascertain the environment that they are currently in. Situational awareness is paramount for a leader, but useful for anybody; it is absolutely necessary to be able to see your life from the hilltop. Be able to see the bigger picture. But, perhaps, I’m getting ahead of myself.

Microsoft once ran an advertising campaign with the slogan “Where do you want to go today?” You must ask yourself this. What is your objective? Okay, now that you’ve asked yourself this, let’s give it a litmus test: Is the objective more complex than it should or needs to be? It must be well-defined in order to be workable in the long run. How, using the situational awareness that you should have developed as a leader by now, take a look at your environment. You are going to be, throughout the course of achieving you goals, applying forces and other stimuli to your environment, the land around your current vantage point atop the hill. How is your environment going to potentially react to the stimuli that you are going to introduce? Do you need to re-think your objective at all yet? Take into account chaos theory heavily: If any errors are introduced into your courses of action throughout obtaining your objective, they will cause for much chaos later on. This is why you must keep things as simple as possible: Introduce as few variables to the mix as possible. This is, of course, you are comfortable with the complex systems that may result from more intricate plans.

Boldness. Speed. Simplicity. These are the things that you are aiming for in developing an offense; this, and trying to develop an offense that does not require much of a defense: The more that you defend ground, the more time is lost, and you may dig your own grave (metaphorically speaking, outside of the military context). A good offense applies just the right amount of force to just the right places at just the right times. If you have planned things exceptionally well, your offense can be quick, as to harness the element of surprise in attaining your objective. Oftentimes, the quickest victory is the best because it is the least costly. Always on the offense, if possible; and take heed of the geometries of your environment and make them work to your advantage.

Why surprise? Again, surprise can make victories less costly for friendly assets and it often catches opponents off-guard, entrenched or otherwise. In certain schools of thought (Sun Tzu, for example) provides that deception is a critical element in surprise; whether deception is used in the accomplishment of your objective or objectives, I will leave to you as may cross the boundaries of proper moral behaviors and is tied to an individual’s belief system. I will say, however, that with or without the element of deception, using surprise as a tool for a successful operation can be achieved.

Tomorrow I will discuss the next topics: Concentration and economy of forces.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

This is very cool: In the future, instead of sending up a space shuttle for routine missions for low earth orbit, we can just get on the space elevator and set it to go to the top floor, leaving the space program having more resources for exploration and not getting the next satellite dish satellite into space.

Derived from the ancient Greek “strategos,” strategy was seen at the time as the art that is practiced by a general. As time passed, this discipline that works to pair tactics with the meeting of an objective through a number of different principles, developed into a field of “grand plans” in the time of the Napoleonic Wars. Whereas some texts will place strategy in a triumvirate with tactics and logistics, I feel that proper tactics and logistics are inclusive of a good strategy.

In my view, strategy formulation is the epitome of all great feats, as it perfectly pairs the science of any particular branch of study with the art form of creative resolutions and applications of specific tactics. The ability to harness the power of strategy empowers an individual—whether they are the lowliest “private on the battlefield” or a CEO in a boardroom—to control the fate of any given situation to their liking.

The formulation of strategy is going to be formulated greatly based on one’s continuing interactions with their environment: Observations, predispositions, traditions, cultures, and any number of other influences acting on the system that you are in. In this respect, a foundation of knowledge in the study of systems from science and mathematics is a strong ally. For instance, military strategy has been closely related to the field of game theory since it’s inception in the past decades: A field of applied mathematics which attempts to predict and control the outcome of serious interactions between intelligent parties.

Aside from environment, schools of thought regarding strategy seem to agree on a finite number of principles that make for a good strategy. These are, listed in no particular order, are:

Objective

Offense

Simplicity

Surprise

Concentration

Economy of force

Maneuver

Cooperation

Security

Objective: The objective is what a strategist must always keep in sight. Regardless of anything else, this is the entire reason for everything else. In extreme circumstances, the situation might even call for “the ends justifying the means,” in the words of Machiavelli. We’ll get to him later, though.

2. Offense: General George S. Patton was made famous, in part by his maxim that an army is always on the offense—that is, to be on the attack and moving towards the objective. This differs from the defense which is the prevention of one’s opponent conquering land or other assets over you.

3. Simplicity: Another maxim from Patton’s playbook, the General liked to play by three simple rules: Speed, simplicity, boldness. Simple plans are easier to execute throughout the ranks, and even with one’s own self. The ability to achieve success in a given situation may be directly proportional to the complexity of a plan—the simpler, the better.

4. Surprise: The ability to catch an opponent off-guard, when they’re not looking, when and where they least expect it…this is the element of surprise. Although the enemy may have strong points and weak points, the element of surprise will add a positive coefficient to the success potential of any offensive measure taken.

5. Concentration: This is linked strongly to economy of force, but differs enough to be considered a separate measure in strategy formulation. Concentration of force, generally speaking, is having the right forces in the right places. As (U.S.) Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest once said, “get there the firstest with the mostest.” This statement illustrates the importance of the previous two portions of strategy formulation: Surprise and concentration.

6. Economy of force: When determining the full value of the forces to be utilized in an operation, the strategist must realize that not all types of resources are created equal: From a military standpoint, artillery and infantry—both combat arms forces—have different effects, and therefore different values, on the battlefield. To this same end, they are best utilized against different aspects of the opponent’s forces. The value of a particular asset is one value at rest, and varying values in different situations.

7. Maneuver: As forces have different economic values based on situation, this factor is also influenced by how they are maneuvered—utilized as an offensive or defensive asset—against the opponent. Maneuvering takes terrain (actually or metaphorically) and other environmental variables into great account in their formulation.

8. Cooperation: As assets are being maneuvered about the battlefield, the interactions that they have with each other should be taken into account. As another military example would indicate: If you have infantry in a firefight and in direct contact with an enemy, you will not want to utilize a Multiple-Launched Rocket System (MLRS) that could have devastating effects against the enemy—and the friendly infantry.

9. Security: Militarily termed “force protection,” this also includes intelligence & counter-intelligence activities. Security aims to protect and maintain friendly assets—forces and otherwise—as well as any competitive advantages that the strategist has against their enemy.

Strategy is what wins a war. Wars are a series of battles which are won by tactics. Tactics are comprised of a series of drills. Drills are a discrete series of repetitive movements that can be mastered by an individual or a team thereof: This where tactics fall into the continuum of the individual fighting towards an objective.

Finally, then, one must look at the support functions necessary to win a war. I will break this down as the U.S. Army has for several years:

Human resources and administration

Security and intelligence

Operations and training

Logistics and maintenance

Civil (and political) affairs

Communications and information management

Joint operations

Resource management

Next I’ll start piecing everything together in order to formulate a successful strategy.